Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lopez v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, 19-CV-9913 (JMF). (2020)

Court: District Court, S.D. New York Number: infdco20200310e89 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 09, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2020
Summary: ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN , District Judge . In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant does not sell gift cards that contain writing in Braille and that its failure to do so violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state and city laws. Similar claims are asserted — by other plaintiffs, against other defendants — in hundreds of cases in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, including at least eight cases assigned to the undersigned. The defendants in many of tho
More

ORDER

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant does not sell gift cards that contain writing in Braille and that its failure to do so violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state and city laws. Similar claims are asserted — by other plaintiffs, against other defendants — in hundreds of cases in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, including at least eight cases assigned to the undersigned. The defendants in many of those cases, including this one, have filed substantially similar motions to dismiss.

To conserve the parties' and the Court's resources, the Court is inclined to stay this action until it has resolved the first of these motions, filed by the defendant in Mendez v. Papa John's USA, Inc., 19-CV-9892, at which point it would give the parties an opportunity to address the impact of the Court's ruling in that case (and any other courts' decisions in the interim). (The Court notes that, in considering the motion to dismiss in Mendez, the Court would also consider the amicus brief submitted by the Retail Litigation Center, Inc. et al. on March 6, 2020, see Docket No. 19-CV-9913, ECF No. 30, and would give the Plaintiff in Mendez an opportunity to respond to it.)

Any objection to such a stay shall be filed on ECF no later than one week from the date of this Order. In light of the foregoing, the opposition and reply deadlines for Defendant's pending motion, see ECF No. 23, are hereby extended by two weeks.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer